Appeal No. 1998-2725
Application 08/473,651
eliminating any of the descriptions of areas covered by
objects during the course of processing. Seki simply
indicates that certain areas will be visible or hidden by the
use of flags, but Seki never removes any of the data
descriptive of the area covered by an object. Therefore, the
modifying step as recited in claims 19 and 20 is not taught or
suggested by Seki. Foley provides nothing to overcome this
deficiency in Seki.
Since the examiner has failed to properly address all
the limitations of claims 19 and 20, the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of these
claims. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 19 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007